LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
It's a bit like Germans attitude to Hitler. The ones who are awake and in a position to wake up others are usually taken out. Don't think we've seen the last to the 'manufactured' acts of 'terrorism' yet. As a means to getting rid of people.
They want us to revolt. They're ready for it. They are trying to get rid of the Constitution and since they can't vote the rights away...
Martial Law will do it quickly with one pen stroke.
And its not the first time:
Presidential suspension of habeas corpus
On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore, favored by his General-in-Chief Winfield Scott. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads," or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Congress was not yet in session to consider a suspension of the writs.
His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman. Lincoln ignored Taney's order.
When Congress convened in July 1861, a joint resolution was introduced into the Senate approving of the president's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, but filibustering by Senate Democrats and opposition to its imprecise wording by Sen. Lyman Trumbull prevented a vote on the resolution before the end of the first session, and the resolution was not taken up again. Sen. Trumbull himself introduced a bill to suspend habeas corpus, but could not get a vote before the end of the first session.
On February 14, 1862, Lincoln ordered most prisoners released, putting an end to court challenges for the time being. He again suspended habeas corpus on his own authority in September that same year, however, in response to resistance to his calling up of the militia.
Can you say "psychopath". It explains everything. Of course, they need authoritarian followers to 'enforce' their will on others too.
I have read elsewhere, with a air bit of skepticism but not altogether doubtful, that Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus has never been rescinded. Further, the debts incurred fighting the Civil War were covered by history's usual suspects, the international bankers, in return for establishment of a corporate facsimile of the United States of America. It's very intriguing. It may not be all true, but there are some odd inconsistencies when comparing the popular narrative of post-Civil War US history with the various "alternative" sources. Secret history continues.
Again buying and selling of our "Government" and its "elected" leadership.
But,
We need reform now! Not Revolution! Nor a Civil War!
None of our Founding Fathers could have understood the lack of Honesty, Ethics and Inegrity of this day and time.
But they understood how to fix issues in the "Government" without desent.
It's Constitutionial Reform voted on by each State and by the People.
We need to demand it!
No matter how long it takes. We took 203 years to ratify the Twenty-seventh Amendment. It was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789, but was not adopted until 1992.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment provides that any change in congressional salaries may take effect only after the beginning of the next term of office for Representatives. Sometimes called the "Congressional Compensation Amendment of 1789", the "Congressional Pay Amendment", and the "Madison Amendment", it was intended to serve as a restraint on the power of Congress to set its own salary—an obvious potential for conflict of interest.
We could do the same thing with lobbying and election reform.
As a Democrat who sees the government as a major threat, I guess I'm in a minority, but what I'm seeing happen day by day to our rights and freedoms is scaring the daylights out of me. What baffles me is that even when presented with the quite ominous facts of what's going on, most people don't seem to be bothered by it at all. I'm really heartened by this survey - maybe more people are being jolted awake.